Children's home run by Keys Active 8 Care Limited in Rossendale

This monitoring visit

A full inspection was carried out on 20 September 2015 and the home was judged inadequate. Widespread shortfalls were found including safeguarding procedures failing to suitably protect young people from harm, poor behaviour management strategies, poor risk management and weak care planning processes. In addition, the home did not have a full staff complement, relying on agency staff to frequently cover shifts at the home. As a result, three compliance notices were issued on 15 October 2015 to address these concerns. An unannounced monitoring visit took place on 5 November 2015 to monitor compliance with the three notices. This identified that sufficient steps had not been taken by leaders and managers to review records and oversee practice so that safeguarding concerns were readily identified and addressed. Further action was needed to ensure that appropriate monitoring systems were in place to adequately

p.2

This monitoring visit

safeguard young people and promote their welfare. As a result of this monitoring visit, failure to meet one of the compliance notices was identified and a further compliance notice was served with regard to safeguarding practice. An unannounced monitoring visit took place on 17 December 2015 to monitor that compliance notices. The monitoring visit identified that additional work was required to further improve the content of risk assessments and to ensure that all staff are aware of the content and following the guidance stipulated within them. The responsible individual was asked to attend a meeting with Ofsted to discuss the concerns and review the actions that the organisation was taking to ensure that young people and staff were safe in the home and that they were operating within regulation. Following the meeting, a full inspection was carried out on 14 January 2016. The home had made significant improvements in help and protection, including

p.2

This monitoring visit

achieving a reduction in children going missing. However, overall, the inspection was judged as requires improvement to be good. Shortfalls included ineffective strategies to improve the attendance and attainment of young people in education, young people were not engaging in drug awareness sessions, this failed to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to help them to stop taking illegal substances and management arrangements at the home were not effective. Three requirements and one recommendation were made for the home to address. On 10 May 2016, a full inspection was undertaken and the overall judgement together with help and protection were judged to be inadequate, with leadership and management requiring improvement. Eleven requirements, three recommendations and three compliance notices were issued. There were significant shortfalls in procedures to protect young people from harm. Young

p.2

This monitoring visit

people were at risk. The staff had been unable to address unacceptable behaviour and the response from staff when young people were missing was inconsistent. The home continued to make little progress in the attendance and attainment of young people in education, which is having a significant impact on the future careers and aspirations of the young people. An unannounced monitoring visit took place on 1 July 2016 to monitor compliance with the three notices. This visit identified that limited progress has been made by staff to understand the reasons why young people are not engaging consistently and regularly in education. Staff have been proactive in some areas to support young people to overcome difficulties. For example, one young person has taken up a work placement twice a week despite previously spending long periods in his bedroom. For another young person, the manager challenged the local authority about the

p.2

This monitoring visit

lack of an appropriate education placement for their young person and has paid from the home’s budget for half an hour tutor time a day. Despite these improvements, the actual time spent in education remains at 45 minutes to one hour per day. For another young person, he does not spend any time in education. The home has failed to be proactive in developing an education plan. Although the tutor arrives each day into the home, they do not have a lesson plan, there is no evaluation of the session completed, or whether the lesson actually took place, and there is no assessment of what the next steps should be. The lesson is totally young person driven, as to what he feels like doing on the day. As a result, the young person is still not making any progress towards achieving educational qualifications that would support him in his working life. For another young person, the staff have put together an incentive plan to

p.3

This monitoring visit

encourage him to attend education. The reward is sports vouchers. However, as part of the incentive scheme the young person can meet his target of up to five pounds a day in vouchers without attending education. This is because he only needs to complete so many targets to earn the voucher. For example, he earns the voucher if he does not smoke in the house, is nice to others and does not mess around in the car. Consequently, the staff and manager at the home have failed to ensure the main focus of the incentive is attendance and engagement in education and a result he continues to miss out on valuable learning to improve his future life chances There are routines in place at the home to encourage young people who are in work to attend their place of work on time. For one young person, this is an improvement. For another young person, the routine of the house does not promote education. This young person requires two-to-one staffing. An agency

p.3

This monitoring visit

member of staff comes into the home each day at midday, as this is when the young person will rise out of bed. A tutor is paid for by the organisation to attend for 30 minutes at 1pm. However, the young person fails to engage daily and often leaves the home despite staff presence. He will be reported missing to the police on most days. The staff have tried to engage the young person in activities which would involve education. However, these plans are often too simplistic and meaningless. For example, a plan was to use maths in playing a game of football. When this was explained further by the manager, she stated that the aim was to count the number of balls he shot into the goals. This does not provide a young person with a lesson in maths and demonstrates the inability of staff to support learning or preparation for a working life. The acting manager and the deputy head of the organisation’s school have failed

p.3

This monitoring visit

to make a written education plan. The acting manager explained it ‘was on her to do list’. There is therefore no plan of action for the staff and tutors to follow or work towards to get young people to attend education. Because there is no plan, there is no basis to review and evaluate progress and no opportunity to formulate new ideas to guide the staff’s next actions to encourage the young people into education. Attempts by staff to engage young people in education are reactive, they demonstrate little thought to the ultimate goals and provide no structure for staff to follow. The organisation has provided additional support for staff with professional behaviour management training. Three of the organisation’s own behavioural team members have worked with staff in team meetings providing strategies for them to use to manage complex behaviour. This includes the missing from care coordinator who has made suggestions for staff to follow to prevent one young person from

p.4

This monitoring visit

routinely going missing from the care home. The acting manager states that 50% of staff are working solidly towards these strategies, while the remaining 50% are having additional supervision and training to ensure that they are skilled to undertake their role. There have been two incidents in the home where staff have failed to take effective action when there has been a serious concern for a young person’s welfare. On 11 June 2016 at 3:10am when two young people arrived back in the house, they were observed to be under the influence of alcohol and other unknown substances. Both young people presented as sweating, very hyperactive, and speaking very fast. They both had their tops off and had dilated pupils. Both young people told staff that they had been ‘partying’. Staff did not contact any medical service for advice or guidance. Both young people were ushered to bed with no plan of observation through the night nor was there any element of concern noted.

p.4

This monitoring visit

The responsible individual stated that had this been her own child she would have done the same. This lack of insight into the dangers of substance misuse by staff and by a senior representative of the organisation demonstrates a lack of responsibility on her behalf to ensure that the staff she is monitoring are keeping young people safe. On 13 June 2016 a young person tried to set fire to the sofa with a lighter. The young person has a conviction for arson and has previously set fire to items in the home. Fire safety was an area of concern at the full inspection on 10 May 2016 and such was the level of concern around the safety of other young people and staff in the home the fire service was asked to attend the home to offer advice and support in managing the identified fire lighting behaviour. A risk assessment was in place and stated that a room search was to be completed both randomly and specifically following an incident of fire setting in the home. On this occasion, a

p.4

This monitoring visit

room search was not completed. The young person was able to return to bed with the lighter. Staff were aware of the risk assessment and the potential dangers for other young people and staff sleeping in the home. However, they failed to follow the risk assessment and take the specified action detailed in it. This demonstrates a clear disregard for the welfare of young people living in the home. The staff within the home have continued to consistently not implement the risk assessments that are in place for each young person. For example, a risk assessment is in place that details the need for a young person’s protective work clothing, specifically their steel-capped boots, to be kept in the office. This was following an incident where the office door was kicked in. This has failed to be actioned. There was also an incident at the home when a chair had been padlocked to the fire door. A young person was able to retrieve a hammer from his

p.4

This monitoring visit

toolbox in his bedroom and proceeded to try and smash the lock. A risk assessment was to be developed to assist staff in managing any future behaviours that could place them and others living in the home in danger, but it was only completed on the afternoon of the monitoring visit. Furthermore, the routine room searches for fire lighting materials had not been followed, nor had they been followed following a fire lighting incident in the home. This significant shortfalls in staff practice to follow or implement the risk assessments fails to safeguard young people and the staff working in the home. The organisation has taken steps to ensure that staff have the experience, skill and qualification to undertake the role of residential childcare workers. Professionals from within the organisation have worked alongside the staff team to provide assistance with behavioural management skills and have provided strategies for

p.5

This monitoring visit

staff to follow. While some practice is yet to be routinely embedded, progress has been made to provide this opportunity for staff. Both the operational manager and responsible individual have been attending the home regularly to support the acting manager. A new deputy manager has been appointed and a senior team leader has returned from sickness to support the new manager in her role. Despite this support, the home continues to have unresolved actions from their Regulation 44 independent visitor report and steps in most of the compliance notices have not yet been met. Appropriate measures have been put in place to ensure that agency staff working in the home have been checked for identification and have relevant experience in the childcare sector. At the start of each shift, agency staff have been inducted into the home’s procedures and risk assessments. This ensures that young people are being looked after by staff members with relevant skills and have been

p.5

This monitoring visit

checked to ensure they are suitable to work in the home. The monitoring visit has identified that the compliance notice under Regulation 32 has been met. The visit has also identified that the compliance notice under Regulation 8 and Regulation 12 have not been sufficiently met. This will result in a formal interview of the responsible individual of the home.

p.5

Information about this children's home

A private organisation operates this children's home. This service is registered for up to four young people, irrespective of gender, aged between 11 and 17 years. The home cares for young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

p.6

Information about this inspection

The purpose of this visit was to monitor the action taken and the progress made by the children's home since its last Ofsted inspection. This inspection was carried out under the Care Standards Act 2000. in the guidance raising concerns and making complaints about "Ofsted" which is available from Ofsted's website: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted . If you would like Ofsted to send you a copy of this guidance, please telephone 0300 123 4234 or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk .

p.7

Information about this inspection

achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children's social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, work- based learning and skills training, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It inspects services for children looked after and child protection. If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 4234 or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk . You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence , write to the Information Policy Team,

p.8

Information about this inspection

The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk .

p.8

Information about this inspection

Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .

p.8

Information about this inspection

Store Street Manchester M1 2WD T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted

p.8